Pages

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

One pound of human fat contains about 3,500 calories. That represents roughly 40 slices of toast. So if you were to eat one extra slice of toast every day, you would gain just under a pound of fat per month. Conversely, if you were to eat one fewer slice per day, you'd lose a pound a month. Right? Not quite.

How is it that most peoples' body fat mass stays relatively stable over long periods of time, when an imbalance of as little as 5% of calories should lead to rapid changes in weight? Is it because we do complicated calculations in our heads every day, factoring in basal metabolic rate and exercise, to make sure our energy intake precisely matches expenditure? Of course not. We're gifted with a sophisticated system of hormones and brain regions that do the calculations for us unconsciously*.

When it's working properly, this system precisely matches energy intake to expenditure, ensuring a stable and healthy fat mass. It does this by controlling food seeking behaviors, feelings of fullness and even energy expenditure by heat production and physical movements. If you eat a little bit more than usual at a meal, a properly functioning system will say "let's eat a little bit less next time, and also burn some of it off." This is why animals in their natural habitat are nearly always at an appropriate weight, barring starvation. The only time wild animals are overweight enough to compromise maximum physical performance is when it serves an important purpose, such as preparing for hibernation.

I recently came across a classic study that illustrates these principles nicely in humans, titled "Metabolic Response to Experimental Overfeeding in Lean and Overweight Healthy Volunteers", by Dr. Erik O. Diaz and colleagues (1). They overfed lean and modestly overweight volunteers 50% more calories than they naturally consume, under controlled conditions where the investigators could be confident of food intake. Macronutrient composition was 12-42-46 % protein-fat-carbohydrate.

After 6 weeks of massive overfeeding, both lean and overweight subjects gained an average of 10 lb (4.6 kg) of fat mass and 6.6 lb (3 kg) of lean mass. Consistent with what one would expect if the body were trying to burn off excess calories and return to baseline fat mass, the metabolic rate and body heat production of the subjects increased.

Following overfeeding, subjects were allowed to eat however much they wanted for 6 weeks. Both lean and overweight volunteers promptly lost 6.2 of the 10 lb they had gained in fat mass (61% of fat gained), and 1.5 of the 6.6 lb they had gained in lean mass (23%). Here is a graph showing changes in fat mass for each individual that completed the study:

We don't know if they would have lost the remaining fat mass in the following weeks because they were only followed for 6 weeks after overfeeding, although it did appear that they were reaching a plateau slightly above their original body weight. Thus, nearly all subjects "defended" their original body fat mass irrespective of their starting point. Underfeeding studies have shown the same phenomenon: whether lean or overweight, people tend to return to their original fat mass after underfeeding is over. Again, this supports the idea that the body has a body fat mass "set point" that it attempts to defend against changes in either direction. It's one of many systems in the body that attempt to maintain homeostasis.

OK, so why do we care?

We care because this has some very important implications for human obesity. With such a powerful system in place to keep body fat mass in a narrow range, a major departure from that range implies that the system isn't functioning correctly. In other words, obesity has to result from a defect in the system that regulates body fat, because a properly functioning system would not have allowed that degree of fat gain in the first place.

So yes, we are gaining weight because we eat too many calories relative to energy expended. But why are we eating too many calories? Because the system that should be defending a low fat mass is now defending a high fat mass. Therefore, the solution is not simply to restrict calories, or burn more calories through exercise, but to try to "reset" the system that decides what fat mass to defend. Restricting calories isn't necessarily a good solution because the body will attempt to defend its setpoint, whether high or low, by increasing hunger and decreasing its metabolic rate. That's why low-calorie diets, and most diets in general, typically fail in the long term. It's miserable to fight hunger every day.

This raises two questions:

What caused the system to defend a high fat mass?

Is it possible to reset the fat mass setpoint, and how would one go about it?

Given the fact that body fat mass is much higher in many affluent nations than it has ever been in human history, the increase must be due to factors that have changed in modern times. I can only speculate what these factors may be, because research has not identified them to my knowledge, at least not in humans. But I have my guesses. I'll expand on this in the next post.

* The hormone leptin and the hypothalamus are the ringleaders, although there are many other elements involved, such as numerous gut-derived peptides, insulin, and a number of other brain regions.

Friday, December 25, 2009

I just saw another study that supports my previous post Animal Models of Atherosclerosis: LDL. The hypothesis is that in the absence of excessive added dietary cholesterol, saturated fat does not influence LDL or atherosclerosis in animal models, relative to other fats (although omega-6 polyunsaturated oils do lower LDL in some animal models). This appears to be consistent with what we see in humans.

In this study, they fed four groups of rabbits different diets:

Regular low-fat rabbit chow

Regular low-fat rabbit chow plus 0.5 g cholesterol per day

High-fat diet with 30% calories as coconut oil (saturated) and no added cholesterol

High-fat diet with 30% calories as sunflower oil (polyunsaturated) and no added cholesterol

LDL at 6 months was the same in groups 1, 3 and 4, but was increased more than 20-fold in group 2. It's not the fat, it's the fact that they're overloading herbivores with dietary cholesterol!

Total cholesterol was also the same between all groups except the cholesterol-fed group. TBARS, a measure of lipid oxidation in the blood, was elevated in the cholesterol and sunflower oil groups but not in the chow or coconut groups. Oxidation of blood lipids is one of the major factors in atherosclerosis, the vascular disease that narrows arteries and increases the risk of having a heart attack. Serum vitamin C was lower in the cholesterol-fed groups but not the others.

This supports the idea that saturated fat does not inherently increase LDL, and in fact in most animals it does not. This appears to be the case in humans as well, where long-term trials have shown no difference in LDL between people eating more saturated fat and people eating less, on timescales of one year or more (some short trials show a modest LDL-raising effect, but even this appears to be due to an increase in particle size rather than particle number). Since these trials represent the average of many people, they may hide some individual variability: it may actually increase LDL in some people and decrease it in others.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Insulin is an important hormone. Its canonical function is to signal cells to absorb glucose from the bloodstream, but it has many other effects. Chronically elevated insulin is a marker of metabolic dysfunction, and typically accompanies high fat mass, poor glucose tolerance (prediabetes) and blood lipid abnormalities. Measuring insulin first thing in the morning, before eating a meal, reflects fasting insulin. High fasting insulin prevents the escape of fat from fat tissue and causes a number of other metabolic disturbances.

Elevated fasting insulin is a hallmark of the metabolic syndrome, the quintessential modern metabolic disorder that affects 24% of Americans (NHANES III). Dr. Lamarche and colleagues found that having an insulin level of 13 uIU/mL in Canada correlated with an 8-fold higher heart attack risk than a level of 9.3 uIU/mL (1; thanks to NephroPal for the reference). So right away, we can put our upper limit at 9.3 uIU/mL. The average insulin level in the U.S., according to the NHANES III survey, is 8.8 uIU/mL for men and 8.4 for women (2). Given the degree of metabolic dysfunction in this country, I think it's safe to say that the ideal level of fasting insulin is probably below 8.4 uIU/mL as well.

Let's dig deeper. What we really need is a healthy, non-industrial "negative control" group. Fortunately, Dr. Staffan Lindeberg and his team made detailed measurements of fasting insulin while they were visiting the isolated Melanesian island of Kitava (3). He compared his measurements to age-matched Swedish volunteers. In male and female Swedes, the average fasting insulin ranges from 4-11 uIU/mL, and increases with age. From age 60-74, the average insulin level is 7.3 uIU/mL.

In contrast, the range on Kitava is 3-6 uIU/mL, which does not increase with age. In the 60-74 age group, in both men and women, the average fasting insulin on Kitava is 3.5 uIU/mL. That's less than half the average level in Sweden and the U.S. Keep in mind that the Kitavans are lean and have an undetectable rate of heart attack and stroke.

Another example from the literature are the Shuar hunter-gatherers of the Amazon rainforest. Women in this group have an average fasting insulin concentration of 5.1 uIU/mL (4; no data was given for men).

I found a couple of studies from the early 1970s as well, indicating that African pygmies and San bushmen have rather high fasting insulin. Glucose tolerance was excellent in the pygmies and poor in the bushmen (5, 6, free full text). This may reflect differences in carbohydrate intake. San bushmen consume very little carbohydrate during certain seasons, and thus would likely have glucose intolerance during that period. There are three facts that make me doubt the insulin measurements in these older studies:

It's hard to be sure that they didn't eat anything prior to the blood draw.

From what I understand, insulin assays were variable and not standardized back then.

In the San study, their fasting insulin was 1/3 lower than the Caucasian control group (10 vs. 15 uIU/mL). I doubt these active Caucasian researchers really had an average fasting insulin level of 15 uIU/mL. Both sets of measurements are probably too high.

Now you know the conflicting evidence, so you're free to be skeptical if you'd like.

We also have data from a controlled trial in healthy urban people eating a "paleolithic"-type diet. On a paleolithic diet designed to maintain body weight (calorie intake had to be increased substantially to prevent fat loss during the diet), fasting insulin dropped from an average of 7.2 to 2.9 uIU/mL in just 10 days. The variation in insulin level between individuals decreased 9-fold, and by the end, all participants were close to the average value of 2.9 uIU/mL. This shows that high fasting insulin is correctable in people who haven't yet been permanently damaged by the industrial diet and lifestyle. The study included men and women of European, African and Asian descent (7).

One final data point. My own fasting insulin, earlier this year, was 2.3 uIU/mL. I believe it reflects a good diet, regular exercise, sufficient sleep, a relatively healthy diet growing up, and the fact that I managed to come across the right information relatively young. It does not reflect: carbohydrate restriction, fat restriction, or saturated fat restriction. Neither does the low fasting insulin of healthy non-industrial cultures.

So what's the ideal fasting insulin level? My current feeling is that we can consider anything between 2 and 6 uIU/mL within our evolutionary template, although the lower half of that range may be preferable.

Monday, December 14, 2009

The diet-heart hypothesis is the idea that saturated fat, and in some versions cholesterol, raises blood cholesterol and contributes to the risk of having a heart attack. To test this hypothesis, scientists have been studying the relationship between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk for more than half a century. To judge by the grave pronouncements of our most visible experts, you would think these studies had found an association between the two. It turns out, they haven't.

The fact is, the vast majority of high-quality observational studies have found no connection whatsoever between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. The scientific literature contains dozens of these studies, so let's narrow the field to prospective studies only, because they are considered the most reliable. In this study design, investigators find a group of initially healthy people, record information about them (in this case what they eat), and watch who gets sick over the years.

A Sampling of Unsupportive Studies

Here are references to ten high-impact prospective studies, spanning half a century, showing no association between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. Ignore the squirming about saturated-to-polyunsaturated ratios, Keys/Hegsted scores, etc. What we're concerned with is the straightforward question: do people who eat more saturated fat have more heart attacks? Many of these papers allow free access to the full text, so have a look for yourselves if you want:

Dietary Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Men: Cohort Follow-up Study in the United States. British Medical Journal. 1996. This is the massive Physicians Health Study. Don't let the abstract fool you! Scroll down to table 2 and see for yourself that the association between saturated fat intake and heart attack risk disappears after adjustment for several factors including family history of heart attack, smoking and fiber intake. That's because, as in most modern studies, people who eat steak are also more likely to smoke, avoid vegetables, eat fast food, etc.

Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997. From the massive Nurse's Health study. This one fooled me for a long time because the abstract is misleading. It claims that saturated fat was associated with heart attack risk. However, the association disappeared without a trace when they adjusted for monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat intake.Have a look at table 3.

I just listed 10 prospective studies published in top peer-reviewed journals that found no association between saturated fat and heart disease risk. This is less than half of the prospective studies that have come to the same conclusion, representing by far the majority of studies to date. If saturated fat is anywhere near as harmful as we're told, why are its effects essentially undetectable in the best studies we can muster?

Studies that Support the Diet-Heart Hypothesis

To be fair, there have been a few that have found an association between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. Here's a list of all four that I'm aware of, with comments:

Over 25 high-quality studies conducted, and only 4 support the diet-heart hypothesis. If this substance is truly so fearsome, why don't people who eat more of it have more heart attacks? In case you're concerned that I'm cherry-picking studies that conform to my beliefs, here are links to review papers on the same data that have reached the same conclusion:

A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009. "Insufficient evidence (less than or equal to 2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat; alpha-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk" They analyzed prospective studies representing over 160,000 patients from 11 studies meeting their rigorous inclusion criteria, and found no association whatsoever between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk.

Where's the Disconnect?

The first part of the diet-heart hypothesis states that dietary saturated fat raises the cholesterol/LDL concentration of the blood. This is held as established fact in the mainstream understanding of nutrition. The second part states that increased blood cholesterol/LDL increases the risk of having a heart attack. What part of this is incorrect?

There's definitely an association between blood cholesterol/LDL level and heart attack risk in certain populations, including Americans. MRFIT, among other studies, showed this definitively, although the lowest risk of all-cause mortality was at an average level of cholesterol. The association between blood cholesterol and heart attack risk does not apply to Japanese populations, as pointed out repeatedly by the erudite Dr. Harumi Okuyama. This seems to be generally true of groups that consume a lot of seafood.

So we're left with the first premise: that saturated fat increases blood cholesterol/LDL. This turns out to be largely a myth, based on a liberal interpretation of short-term feeding studies. In fact, it isn't even true in animal models of heart disease. In the 1950s, the most vigorous proponent of the diet-heart hypothesis, Dr. Ancel Keys, created a formula designed to predict changes in blood cholesterol based on the consumption of dietary saturated and polyunsaturated fats. This formula is extremely inaccurate and has gradually been dropped from the modern medical literature. Yet the idea that saturated fat consumption increases blood cholesterol/LDL lives on...

This is it, folks: the diet-heart hypothesis ends here. It's been kept afloat for decades by wishful thinking, puritan sensibilities and selective citation of the evidence. It's time to put it out of its misery.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Susceptible strains of rodents fed high-fat diets overeat, gain fat and become profoundly insulin resistant. Dr. Jianping Ye's group recently published a paper showing that the harmful metabolic effects of a high-fat diet (lard and soybean oil) on mice can be prevented, and even reversed, using a short-chain saturated fatty acid called butyric acid (hereafter, butyrate). Here's a graph of the percent body fat over time of the two groups:

The butyrate-fed mice remained lean and avoided metabolic problems. Butyrate increased their energy expenditure by increasing body heat production and modestly increasing physical activity. It also massively increased the function of their mitochondria, the tiny power plants of the cell.

Butyrate lowered their blood cholesterol by approximately 25 percent, and their triglycerides by nearly 50 percent. It lowered their fasting insulin by nearly 50 percent, and increased their insulin sensitivity by nearly 300 percent*. The investigators concluded:

Butyrate and its derivatives may have potential application in the prevention and treatment of metabolic syndrome in humans.

There's one caveat, however: the butyrate group at less food. Something about the butyrate treatment caused their food intake to decline after 3 weeks, dropping roughly 20% by 10 weeks. The investigators cleverly tried to hide this by normalizing food intake to body weight, making it look like the food intake of the comparison group was dropping as well (when actually it was staying the same as this group was gaining weight).

I found this study thought-provoking, so I looked into butyrate further.

Butyrate Suppresses Inflammation in the Gut and Other Tissues

In most animals, the highest concentration of butyrate is found in the gut. That's because it's produced by intestinal bacteria from carbohydrate that the host cannot digest, such as cellulose and pectin. Indigestible carbohydrate is the main form of dietary fiber.

It turns out, butyrate has been around in the mammalian gut for so long that the lining of our large intestine has evolved to use it as its primary source of energy. It does more than just feed the bowel, however. It also has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer effects. So much so, that investigators are using oral butyrate supplements and butyrate enemas to treat inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. Investigators are also suggesting that inflammatory bowel disorders may be caused or exacerbated by a deficiency of butyrate in the first place.

Butyrate, and other short-chain fatty acids produced by gut bacteria**, has a remarkable effect on intestinal permeability. In tissue culture and live rats, short-chain fatty acids cause a large and rapid decrease in intestinal permeability. Butyrate, or dietary fiber, prevents the loss of intestinal premeability in rat models of ulcerative colitis. This shows that short-chain fatty acids, including butyrate, play an important role in the maintenance of gut barrier integrity. Impaired gut barrier integrity is associated with many diseases, including fatty liver, heart failure and autoimmune diseases (thanks to Pedro Bastos for this information-- I'll be covering the topic in more detail later).

Butyrate's role doesn't end in the gut. It's absorbed into the circulation, and may exert effects on the rest of the body as well. In human blood immune cells, butyrate is potently anti-inflammatory***.

Butyrate Increases Resistance to Metabolic and Physical Stress

Certain types of fiber reduce atherosclerosis in animal models, and this effect may be due to butyrate production produced when the fiber is fermented. Fiber intake was associated with lower blood markers of inflammation in the Women's Health Initiative study, and has been repeatedly associated with lower heart attack risk and reduced progression of atherosclerosis in humans. Butyrate also sharply reduces the harmful effects of type 1 diabetes in rats, as does dietary fiber to a lesser extent.

Butyrate increases the function and survival of mice with certain neurodegenerative diseases. Polyglutamine diseases, which are the most common class of genetic neurodegenerative diseases, are delayed in mice treated with butyrate (1, 2, 3). Many of you have probably heard of Huntington's disease, which is the most common of the class. I did my thesis on a polyglutamine disease called SCA7, and this is the first suggestion I've seen that diet may be able to modify its course.

Yet another interesting finding in the first paper I discussed: mice treated with butyrate were more cold-resistant than the comparison group. When they were both placed in a cold room, body temperature dropped quite a bit in the comparison group, while it remained relatively stable in the butyrate group, despite the fact that the butyrate group was leaner****. This was due to increased heat production in the butyrate group.

Due to the potent effect butyrate has on a number of bodily processes, I believe it may be a fundamental controller of metabolism, stress resistance and the immune system in mammals, similar to omega-6:3 balance.

An Ancient Line of Communication Between Symbiotic Organisms

Why does butyrate have so much control over inflammation? Let's think about where it comes from. Bacteria in the gut produce it. It's a source of energy, so our bodies take it up readily. It's one of the main molecules that passes from the symbiotic (helpful) bacteria in the gut to the rest of the body. It's only logical that the body would receive butyrate as a signal that there's a thriving colony of symbiotic bacteria in the gut, and induce a tolerance to them. The body may alter its immune response (inflammation) in order to permit a mutually beneficial relationship between itself and its symbionts.

A Change of Heart

Butyrate has caused me to re-think my position on fiber-- which was formerly that it's irrelevant at best. I felt that fiber came along with nutrient-dense whole plant foods, but was not beneficial per se. I believed that the associations between fiber intake and a lower risk of a number of diseases were probably due to the fact that wealthier, more educated, healthier people tend to buy more whole grains, fruit and vegetables. In other words, I believed that fiber intake was associated with better health, but did not contribute to it. I now feel, based on further reading about fiber and short-chain fatty acids like butyrate, that the associations represent a true cause-and-effect relationship.

I also didn't fully appreciate the caloric contribution of fiber to the human diet. In industrialized countries, fiber may contribute 5 to 10 percent of total calorie intake, due to its conversion to short-chain fatty acids like butyrate in the large intestine (free full text). This figure is probably at least twice as high in cultures consuming high-fiber diets. It's interesting to think that "high-carbohydrate" cultures may be getting easily 15 percent of their calories from short-chain fats. Since that isn't recorded in dietary surveys, they may appear more dependent on carbohydrate than they actually are. The Kitavans may be getting more than 30 percent of their total calories from fat, despite the fact that their food is only 21 percent fat when it passes their lips. Their calorie intake may be underestimated as well.

Sources of Butyrate

There are two main ways to get butyrate and other short-chain fatty acids. The first is to eat fiber and let your intestinal bacteria do the rest. Whole plant foods such as sweet potatoes, properly prepared whole grains, beans, vegetables, fruit and nuts are good sources of fiber. Refined foods such as white flour, white rice and sugar are very low in fiber. Clinical trials have shown that increasing dietary fiber increases butyrate production, and decreasing fiber decreases it (free full text).

Butyrate also occurs in significant amounts in food. What foods contain butyrate? Hmm, I wonder where the name BUTYR-ate came from? Butter perhaps? Butter is 3-4 percent butyrate, the richest known source. But everyone knows butter is bad for you, right?

After thinking about it, I've decided that butyrate must have been a principal component of Dr. Weston Price's legendary butter oil. Price used this oil in conjunction with high-vitamin cod liver oil to heal tooth decay and a number of other ailments in his patients. The method he used to produce it would have concentrated fats with a low melting temperature, including butyrate, in addition to vitamin K2*****. Thus, the combination of high-vitamin cod liver oil and butter oil would have provided a potent cocktail of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D3, K2), omega-3 fatty acids and butyrate. It's no wonder it was so effective in his patients.

* According to insulin tolerance test.

** Acetate (acetic acid, the main acid in vinegar), propionate and butyrate are the primary three fatty acids produced by intestinal fermentation.

*** The lowest concentration used in this study, 30 micromolar, is probably higher than the concentration in peripheral serum under normal circumstances. Human serum butyrate is in the range of 4 micromolar in British adults, and 29 micromolar in the hepatic portal vein which brings fats from the digestive tract to the liver (ref). This would likely be at least two-fold higher in populations eating high-fiber diets.

**** Due to higher mitochondrial density in brown fat and more mitochondrial uncoupling.

Friday, December 4, 2009

A few months ago, I posted link to an article by Dr. Ron Rosedale and made a few comments about it. Dr. Rosedale has sent a reply to my comments, which I have agreed to publish as a new post because they may be of interest to readers. In the following exchange, my numbered comments are in quotes and Dr. Rosedale's replies follow them.Dr. Rosedale's Comments

1. Dr. Rosedale says that insulin's ability to regulate blood sugar is a minor role, and that other hormones do the same thing. Tell that to a type 1 diabetic. Excessive blood glucose is Not Good, and that's what you get if there isn't enough insulin around.

What I have said was that insulin does not control glucose levels in the blood, and that insulin's biological purpose (not ability) plays only a minor role in BS control... and that is a correct statement. Insulin reduces blood glucose by storing it for a rainy day as glycogen and fat, but not for the purpose of regulating blood sugar levels. The control of BS is in an upward direction, not a downward direction. The problem in our evolutionary history was to have enough BS for emergency anaerobic respiration and for those tissues that require it such as red blood cells. Lowering blood sugar was never a priority in our history. For one, it didn't rise much very often. There wasn't much glucose around. Uncooked rice and potatoes, etc., are mostly indigestible. The sugar that was around, such as in fruit, required considerable effort to obtain therefore lowered the sugar prior to obtaining it. Also, the sugar that is in fruit is largely fructose which doesn't convert that much into glucose but rather into fat in the liver. Even if it did raise blood sugar levels, even if it did cause diabetes in evolutionary time, nature would consider that irrelevant as it wouldn't have killed people prior to the reproductive years, only post-reproductively when nature doesn't give adamn.

Furthermore, insulin's major purpose goes way beyond sugar. At the very least, it is a nutrient storage hormone being relevant not only in glucose storage, but also in fat and protein (amino acid) storage. It also plays a significant role in micronutrient storage and conversions. However, overwhelmingly more important, is insulin's role as a nutrient sensor greatly influencing genetic expression and modifying the rate of aging by up or down regulating maintenance and repair.

2. I'm not convinced by the theory that organisms balance reproduction and repair, emphasizing one at the expense of the other. The amount of energy it takes to fuel cellular repair processes is negligible compared to the amount it takes to maintain body temperature, fuel the brain and contract skeletal muscles. Why not just have the organism eat an extra half-teaspoon of mashed potatoes to fuel the heat-shock proteins and make a little extra catalase? I think the true reasons behind lifespan extension upon caloric restriction will turn out to be more complex than a balance between reproduction and repair.

Stephan does not have to be convinced. Almost everybody who studies the biology of aging is convinced that there is a dichotomy between reproduction and maintenance and repair and that biologically a cell can spend the majority of available resources towards one or the other, but not both. This can actually be shown genetically as the up or down regulation of the expression of genes regulating heat shock proteins, intracellular antioxidant systems, DNA repair enzymes, "garbage collection", etc versus the up or down regulation of genes which regulate reproductive behavior. It should also be noted that excessive reproductive behavior is, in individual cells of multicellular organisms, a strong predisposition to cancer. Furthermore, Stephan’s statement that it takes negligible energy for maintenance and repair is very wrong. In fact one could make the argument that almost all of the energy spent by both individual cells and by the cell societies of multi-celled organisms when not reproducing is towards maintenance and repair.

3. I disagree with the idea that carbohydrate itself is behind elevated fasting insulin and leptin. Just look at the Kitavans. They get 69% of their calories from high-glycemic-load carbohydrates, with not much fat (21%) or protein (10%) to slow digestion. Yet, they have low fasting insulin and remarkably low fasting leptin. I believe the fasting levels of these hormones are more responsive to macronutrient quality than quantity. In other words, what matters most is not how much carbohydrate is in the diet, but where the carbohydrate comes from. The modern Western combination of carelessly processed wheat, sugar and linoleic acid-rich vegetable oil seems to be particularly harmful.

It is not where the carbohydrates come from, but where the carbohydrates go. In other words, what carbohydrates are digested into, i.e what the cells are being fed. Feeding them glucose, fructose, galactose and amino acids as energy (as opposed to using the amino acids whole as structural components) is bad.

Stephan himself could answer this one. It's not the percent of calories from carbohydrates that is relevant; it is the absolute amount of non-fiber carbohydrates that is relevant as the glycemic load.

A few further comments on the Kitavans, though I really am not an expert on their diet:

I find that indigenous diets are only partially helpful as there are so many variables that can go unaccounted for. I prefer the more elementary sciences to form opinions. However, it sounds like there really isn't that much non-fiber carbohydrate in the diet and there is considerable fiber, fish and coconut oil, and moderate to low protein, all of which are quite fine for health. If it is known, the total gram quantities of macronutrients would be good to know. Another important point; what is their lifespan? It sounds like it might be long, but it would be nice to know a more accurate figure. It is not weight loss that we should be after, it is health as indicated by a long and youthful lifespan. Another point; though they (the Kitavans) may be doing well if one defines well as better than most human counterparts, it isn't really saying much. The majority of society eats so badly that it really is not difficult to eat a diet that is better. What I am after is not just better, but best. Perhaps one could take the Kitavan diet and improve upon it by reducing the non-fiber carbohydrate content and perhaps adding more beneficial fats and oils. It is quite possible, in fact probable, that there have been no human societies that have eaten an ideal diet. We can only use what modern science is telling us to come up with this.

My Reply to Dr. Rosedale

Thank you for your comments.

1. I agree with you that control of blood sugar is not insulin's only purpose, and that there are other mechanisms of blood glucose control. There were several papers published recently showing that type 1 diabetic rats (lacking insulin) can be restored to a normal blood glucose level and near-normal glucose tolerance by infusing leptin into the lateral or the third cerebral ventricles (1, 2). This was totally independent of insulin, because the rats weren't producing any. And yes, insulin signaling influences lifespan in a number of animal models.

However, insulin is still the primary controller of blood sugar under normal circumstances, as shown in type 1 diabetes where the primary defect is in insulin production. Furthermore, excessively elevated glucose is damaging per se, due to protein glycation, competition with vitamin C, etc. Therefore, the glucose-controlling function of insulin is important.

I do not agree that glucose from starch and fruit played an insignificant role in human evolution. A number of modern hunter-gatherers eat a significant amount of starch, and our ancestors probably did as well, as soon as they could cook. The timeline of cooking is debated, but we've probably been doing it for at least half a million years, or as long as Homo sapiens has existed. Fruit sugar is roughly 50% glucose, as is honey.

2. As someone who spent two years in the field of aging research, I don't see a scientific consensus on the idea that reproduction and aging are in balance with one another. The two correlate with one another in some, but not all models. I was at a seminar just the other day by Dr. Linda Partridge, from the Max Planck institute, and she was talking about her lifespan experiments in fruit flies. She was able to independently modify lifespan and fecundity using amino acid restriction, leading her to the conclusion that there is no link between the two in her model. She published these data recently in the journal Nature (reference).

Regarding the energy required for cellular maintenance, a little math is instructive here. I eat maybe 3,200 calories a day, which is normal for an active male of my weight. My basal metabolic rate is roughly 1,700 kcal per day. So 1,500 of my calories have already gone to moving my skeletal muscles. Of the basal metabolic rate, the vast majority comes from maintaining body temperature. Thermogenesis is why cold-blooded animals only need to eat a fraction of the calories mammals do. Then there's cardiac function, and smooth muscle activity, which eat up more calories. Then there are the energy-intensive cellular processes of maintaining ionic gradients across cell membranes (which is why the brain eats up 20% of our calories) and protein synthesis.

After you subtract out all those functions, only a small fraction of total caloric intake is left for other cellular processes. So the caloric needs for processes that combat cellular aging (DNA repair, etc.) are quite low, compared to overall energy requirements. This is consistent with the fact that naked mole rats, which live ten times longer than Rattus norvegicus, have a similar basal metabolic rate to one another. Keeping cells from being damaged is not a particularly energy-intensive process, and so we have to look elsewhere for the reason why it hasn't been prioritized by evolution.

3. The Kitavan diet is high in digestible starch. The foods they eat have been characterized for starch content, glycemic index, and fiber content. Their diet overall has a high glycemic load, is 69% carbohydrate by calories, and is similar in calories to the American diet. They have a low BMI, a low fasting insulin and low fasting glucose. I agree that there are many factors at play here, and the example of the Kitavans doesn't necessarily give carbohydrate a free pass in all situations. But it does show that a high carbohydrate intake, at least under certain circumstances, is compatible with low fasting insulin, high insulin sensitivity, leanness, and apparent good health.

I also agree that the Kitavans are not really a good model of longevity. Although they live a long time relative to other non-industrial cultures, and have individuals exceeding 95 years old, they don't have a longer average lifespan than people in affluent nations. One can guess that it's due to a lack of modern medical care to treat infectious diseases, and I think that's likely to play a role, but ultimately it's speculation. It's an open question whether you could improve their lifespan by reducing the non-fiber carbohydrate content of their diet, but I'm skeptical.

In the end, it's also an open question whether or not you can extend life by restricting carbohydrate. For the typical overweight American who responds well to carbohydrate restriction, it's reasonable to speculate that it might. For an insulin-sensitive, lean American, it's not clear that it would have much benefit, outside of reducing potentially harmful foods such as gluten and sugar. Although insulin signaling is probably tied up with lifespan in humans, as in many other species, no one has shown that post-meal insulin spikes caused by carbohydrate, as opposed to chronically elevated insulin and insulin resistance, is harmful. The story is not as simple as "more serum insulin = shorter lifespan".

Is there any evidence that carbohydrate restriction extends lifespan in a non-carnivorous mammal such as a rodent or monkey? I'm open to the possibility, but I haven't seen any studies. I'll look forward to them.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

For those who didn't want to wade through the entire nerd safari, I offer a simple summary.

Our ancestors had straight teeth, and their wisdom teeth came in without any problem. The same continues to be true of a few non-industrial cultures today, but it's becoming rare. Wild animals also rarely suffer from orthodontic problems.

Today, the majority of people in the US and other affluent nations have some type of malocclusion, whether it's crooked teeth, overbite, open bite or a number of other possibilities.

There are three main factors that I believe contribute to malocclusion in modern societies:

Maternal nutrition during the first trimester of pregnancy. Vitamin K2, found in organs, pastured dairy and eggs, is particularly important. We may also make small amounts from the K1 found in green vegetables.

Food toughness. The jaws probably require stress from tough food to develop correctly. This can contribute to the widening of the dental arch until roughly age 17. Beef jerky, raw vegetables, raw fruit, tough cuts of meat and nuts are all good ways to exercise the jaws.

And now, an example from the dental literature to motivate you. In 1976, Dr. H. L. Eirew published an interesting paper in the British Dental Journal. He took two 12-year old identical twins, with identical class I malocclusions (crowded incisors), and gave them two different orthodontic treatments. Here's a picture of both girls before the treatment:

In one, he made more space in her jaws by extracting teeth. In the other, he put in an apparatus that broadened her dental arch, which roughly mimics the natural process of arch growth during childhood and adolescence. This had profound effects on the girls' subsequent occlusion and facial structure:

The girl on the left had teeth extracted, while the girl on the right had her arch broadened. Under ideal circumstances, this is what should happen naturally during development. Notice any differences?

Thanks to the Weston A Price foundation's recent newsletter for the study reference.